This subreddit is for lovers of design!

Be sure to flair your submissions!

RULES

1. No free work.

Simple. No requesting free work or you will be banned.

2. No personal information.

Real or fake, you will be banned without any warning.

3. No advertising.

You may not advertise your content or work. This means no content that is commercial, nor fueled by self-interest (i.e. intended for monetary, view, or karma gain). Your work must be honest, and must not blatantly advertise.

I don't use stock art enough to make it worth my while to pay for a subscription or buy in bulk yet. So I was curious how others handle billing clients for stock photography. Bill per instance? Treat it a business expense like hardware/internet etc? Something else?

I'm just to the point where sxc is not cutting it anymore a lot of the time.

i agree with ninjas, stock art is typically so low cost (a ton of it is free) that it's worth eating the cost. nzeeshan is wise though to suggest that you fully inform your clients. most projects aren't just "here's what i want" "okay done". when you're pitching the design aspect that contains stock art (tiled background, picture of generic multiethnic corporate staff in a header) make causal mention that it is indeed stock photography, and also make note that you're absorbing the cost out of pocket. you'll get points for being upfront, and a TON of credit for essentially throwing them a little freebie. it doesn't matter that they have the money, it's just a nice gesture. if they disapprove, be ready to brainstorm on a workaround. depending on the application, you can likely replicate the image in some way. you don't need 20 years behind a 500 dollar camera to take a picture of 3 guys smiling in an office elevator, and you're about 20 minutes with a wacom tablet away from a nice background.

if you don't have the photography skills, find a guy that does, and subcontract him. market it to the client as a much more versatile way to get photography, as they can decide on things like clothing, location, whatever. they can get any other photo needs done at the same time (staff pics for gallery/ bios on site?) take a suitable percentage of the photographers paycheck as a finders fee. it's common practice, and you earned it. if you're lucky, you may develop a lasting connection with the photographer, throwing each other applicable work regularly. screen carefully though, as if the guy ends up being a bum, it's your ass.

I agree. That is why I recommend not charging by the apple in the apple pie. :)

Like a restaurant, they don't need to know your full ingredient list. They want a clear price and know that leads to final deliverable. Never ever give the option to make a bad meal. Charge enough to make even your lower end meals worth telling their friends.

Simply bill it as Stock photography. It is important that your client knows they don't own exclusive rights to the photos. If they see the same stock photo being used else where, they'll give you a bad rep for no reason. Let them know about the license limitations (dunno if you use istock photo)

Work as far as you can with comps, let the client know you're using stock photos, how much it'll cost, get approval, and then bill for the cost. Be up front about it. Let them realize that stock is cheaper than original photography and illustrations, and give them the option of using originals instead.

Be upfront with your clients. Let them know along the way where there are going to be expenses, and give them options. Don't buy stock without getting it approved by the client first.

Print or web?
Have you thought about or do you need to obtain extended rights to an image?
Is this even possible with the stock service you're using?
How complex or major is the job? Flyer for Joe's Lawnmowing or more corporate material?

So much depends on the instance.

List stock photos as expenditure with ten to fifteen per cent handling included.

I would say it depends on cost. I'm a Web designer so I almost never need anything but the lowest resolution. I get almost everything from istockphoto so I'm only spending maybe $2-$15 for photos or illustrations. That said, I don't bill the client for it but do count it as a business expense and keep it for future use. It's been ages since I've done any print work, but I recall paying $50-$200 for print quality stock photos and in those cases I billed the client and sent them the original. Do however bill for your time searching for the image.

Some people treat it like a business expense and inflate the cost of all work to account for the annual average, but I prefer to bill it on a per job basis, in effect itemizing it as materials cost. I don't think this is such a big deal to clients either, as the cost of stock for any given project usually is not very high and saves the time that you would have had to spend creating that art yourself.

Stockart is destroying the industry for paying artist, lowers their pay in gives so little back to the artist themselvs.

I could never dream about using stockart - ever! And I would never pay for it. Sometimes I find creative commens photos on flickr and use that instead and I notify the original creator, so he/she also can enjoy the use.

This is like saying using computer fonts makes cheap work, imho. Stock is a tool. Like anything, good designers use it well.

I run a design studio that works with Fortune 500 companies. Last week I looked at over 400 resumes for a new position. Most of the ones that said what you do, had books that were mind-blowingly awful or stuck in their one style.

Care to share your work?

(I just want to be clear I'm not baiting you. And I didn't downvote you. Generally interested.)

Im not going to disclose my work, which I would if I showed you my work. What happens on reddit stays here. Sorry I just have some very strong feelings religion and politics.

You can't compare font to stock art or even stock photo and if you ever worked with bad logo designer, I think you know the problem. Its a easy solution to the worst logo designs ever conceived and I can't understand why people don't make their own, I mean it's so basic to do so.

Yes who uses stockart/photo? Its something thats rather common in advertising and sometimes I just wonder why. I mean some of the stuff aren't difficult to make yourself, but I tend to think people want to skip learning vector graphic and just plunge in and manipulate pixels in PS. Thats just my feeling..

Fonts are chosen rather differently and I do make some of my own glyphs, if its monospaced.

the reason why stock is something I feel is extremely bad is: photographers are a dying breed, especially for those who are trying to make a living while maturing and the same goes for illustrators. What perhaps is the worst about this trend, is its the photographers and illustrators own fault.

I upmodded you because I had the same feelings about it at first. After some consideration I believe what stock art does is just raise the bar for the true professionals. Take my profession - as a web designer there are plenty of places to get a cheap template and DIY. It's my job to be sure I can make a better website than that. It's already everywhere and the way I see it is that we may as well look at it as a resource instead of the end of our industry.

What I'm saying is that it has already happened with web design. There will always be a market for original work though so all the stock sites people can get now have only served to inspire designers like us to up our game to stay relevant. I don't know the photo or illustration biz as well but I'd guess that's how it is there too.